Wednesday, October 21, 2009

McDermott's staffer says he won't sign on to the 72 hour rule because it's a Republican bill - Updated

I called Jim McDermott's office yesterday to ask why he has not yet signed the Discharge Petition for H.R. 554 which would require bills be made available for 72 hours before any legislation could be voted upon.

This is the conversation:

Me: Hi. I was wondering why the Congressman has not signed the Discharge Petition for H.R. 554 yet?

Staffer: Uh, which one is that?

Me: The 72 hour bill, ensuring that there will be 72 hours -

Staffer: Oh yeah, oh yeah. 72 hours before a bill can be vote on. Is that the bill being put up by a Republican?

Me: (thinking, that's a strange question) Um, I don't know.

Staffer: (disdainfully) Yeah, yeah, I think it is. That's probably why he hasn't signed on. If it's a Republican bill then yeah, that's probably why.

Me: Excuse me, what about bipartisanship? Who cares if it's a Republican bill? (I forgot to mention that Democrat Brian Baird is a cosponsor) I'm shocked that a Democrat would not want full transparency in government! (playing on the idea that Dems are somehow all about transparency...)

Staffer: Uh, uh, I don't actually know much about it, so let me pass you on to Darcy. She's on the other line right now, but uh, you can leave her a message.

Update: Darcy has yet to return my phone call. 10-24-09


  1. Hey, at least you got an honest answer. That's pretty uncommon in itself!

  2. Bet it was Liz Becton!

  3. Hey, at least they answered the phone.

  4. Don't settle for scraps with the "at least she was honest/answered..." because as taxpayers we deserve more of an answer then that. It's our money they are effing with and they wont listen to how we want it spent (or saved!). They are using us as their personal ATMs. I'm so sick of this liberal crap-dance.

  5. You're all fired up about awful gov't spending. Great. Where were you when the 100's of billions started flowing into Iraq to destroy and rebuild that screwed up mess of a country? Now, wouldn't you want to spend money on your ACTUAL neighbors instead of some far off desert. Help me out here. I really, really want to understand.

  6. Hello Scott,
    It all started with the Gulf War. George Bush was too weak to finish off Sadaam Hussein when we had all the troops over there already. So after 9/11 when everybody was waiting for the next attack to happen any minute, Sadaam was playing a stupid game with his neighbors by trying to fool them into thinking that he just might have biological weapons. So everybody and their mother around the world bought into this and so George Jr. and all the Democrats thought that Sadaam was a much bigger threat than he was and now we are trillions of dollars down but Sadaam and Uday and Qusay are dead. But then so are thousands of brave Americans, And oh yea, the Chinese are going to get some good oil deals. Sadaam lied, hundreds of thousands of people have died and all that money we could have spent to buy 10 health care reform plans is gone. I hope that explains things. The Repulicans are idiots and theives and the Democrats are thieves and idiots.

  7. national security is more important than giving handouts to our lazy neighbors. If we drop national security to buy the neighbors a flat screen TV what do you think will happen? Think Red Dawn.


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.